Establishing Guidelines

[Willtor]

It was suggested in another thread that we "Moderates" establish what it is that we are calling Christianity and how we mean that in this subforum. This, to my mind, is actually quite an undertaking since most of us have some general notion of what a Moderate is, and it is quite likely that many of us don't see eye-to-eye on everything.

In light of this, I'd suggest a system that is more descriptive than prescriptive or proscriptive; and even then, something fairly minimal. That is, most of us probably feel very strongly about some of the things we think and it makes sense to identify some of the core points and point to them as things with which we would like to be identified. But it should not be treated as a metric for Christianity.

For example, I am quite persuaded that God is Triune and I would identify that as something necessary for one to accept in order to be a follower of Christ (if they are able to grasp it). Even so, if the doctrine makes it into our self-description I would do everything I could to welcome those who think otherwise and not treat them as lesser Christians. Although I think it is an absolutely necessary doctrine I am also not the Judge (probably a good thing). But by putting such a thing into our statement, it provides a framework for discussing it (and debating it in the appropriate sub-forum).

Essentially, I'd hope for something that is a minimal-but-adequate description that doesn't act to exclude those who disagree. As a first suggestion, I'd put up the Apostle's Creed.

Thoughts?

 

[chaoschristian]

I concur with Higgs2 that a statement of faith is the wrong direction to take. Such statements are by definition self-reducing, especially in the context of an ecumenical forum such as this.

I aslo concur with Willtor that a descriptive approach is the best. This seems to have worked well for WWMC. Again, prescriptive/proscriptive approaches tend to be self-reducing and would, I think, quickly lead to division within the forum. I think that's something we all want to avoid.

I recommend simply that members (if we are to have a membership list, please maybe we can forgo that) are those that self-idenity as moderate Christians and focus the rules on behaviour rather than belief.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I agree. Let's the keep the definition of a moderate Christian minimal, and mostly leave it to self-identification. We can afford to do that because we have no mission to keep the 'infidels' outside the gates.

But I'm afraid we do have to have a membership list. We don't want just random people from all over the site voting on our rules and our mods.

 

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I don't think a membership list would be helpful at all myself.

 

[Willtor]

Yeah, I'd like to forgo the membership list, too. That's a recipe for club mentality.

 

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

But I'm afraid we do have to have a membership list. We don't want just random people from all over the site voting on our rules and our mods.

Really? Do you think so? It seems to cause issues with the other forums...the word "exclusive" comes up alot in response.

 

[Willtor]

I agree. Let's the keep the definition of a moderate Christian minimal, and mostly leave it to self-identification. We can afford to do that because we have no mission to keep the 'infidels' outside the gates.

But I'm afraid we do have to have a membership list. We don't want just random people from all over the site voting on our rules and our mods.

Could we make the membership list more of a representative list? That is, a group of people elected to tackle various issues?

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Really? Do you think so? It seems to cause issues with the other forums...the word "exclusive" comes up alot in response.

It causes issues in CC (where I'm a member), but it doesn't in WWMC (where I used to be, but had to quit because of a CC rule that you couldn't also be in WWMC). Why in one place and not the other? I think it has to do with the purpose of it: In CC there's a mission to keep the 'infidels' out. The membership list is there to make sure the membership is truly conservative. In WWMC all they're trying to accomplish is to keep random people from all over the site voting on their mods and rules. From that very limited intent, issues seldom arise. I'm proposing we follow the WWMC example on that.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Could we make the membership list more of a representative list? That is, a group of people elected to tackle various issues?

Maybe that could work.

 

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I concur with Higgs2 that a statement of faith is the wrong direction to take. Such statements are by definition self-reducing, especially in the context of an ecumenical forum such as this.

I aslo concur with Willtor that a descriptive approach is the best. This seems to have worked well for WWMC. Again, prescriptive/proscriptive approaches tend to be self-reducing and would, I think, quickly lead to division within the forum. I think that's something we all want to avoid.

I recommend simply that members (if we are to have a membership list, please maybe we can forgo that) are those that self-idenity as moderate Christians and focus the rules on behaviour rather than belief.

I agree to a point. I do think it's important for us to establish the basic beliefs of a Christian...the Nicean Creed would work well enough for this. Name the things that we come together in agreement with as a foundation at the least.

 

[chaoschristian]

I agree to a point. I do think it's important for us to establish the basic beliefs of a Christian...the Nicean Creed would work well enough for this. Name the things that we come together in agreement with as a foundation at the least.

Emphasis mine.

I have to check, but I think the congregational forum wiki takes cares of this for us.

 

[chaoschristian]

I don't like the idea of a membership list, but if the consensus of the forum it so have one, I would like it restricted to voting purposes only.

 

[Willtor]

I agree to a point. I do think it's important for us to establish the basic beliefs of a Christian...the Nicean Creed would work well enough for this. Name the things that we come together in agreement with as a foundation at the least.

I'd very much like to, too. But I can see ChaosChristian's point about not doing one at all. And I'd go with it either way. I certainly think that self-identification is an important part of _being_ a Moderate Christian. Besides, I don't think anybody is going to see "Moderate Christians" and immediately conclude "Marcionites" (though, for all I know there may be one or two here).

However, much as I'm turned off by the idea of some comprehensive checklist of doctrines used as a litmus test, I do think that community identification (not just self-identification) is valuable. I say this partially in seeing it from another angle: those who do not self-identify as "Moderate Christians."

Suppose, for example, that there was a "Moderate Muslim" forum of people who did not fit well into Sunni-ism, Sufi-ism, Shi'i-ism, or Wahabi-ism. They might self-identify as "Moderate Muslims" but I (as an outsider) would like to get a general sense as to what is meant by "Muslim" in the greater sense, even if some self-identifying individuals disagree. Of course I'd expect to speak to an individual to get some idea of what he or she thought even if he or she happened to disagree with some points in the general outline.

 

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I don't like the idea of a membership list, but if the consensus of the forum it so have one, I would like it restricted to voting purposes only.

I agree.

 

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Emphasis mine.

I have to check, but I think the congregational forum wiki takes cares of this for us.

If thats the case then I guess we're covered.

 

[Willtor]

I don't like the idea of a membership list, but if the consensus of the forum it so have one, I would like it restricted to voting purposes only.

Agreed. And, again, I'd push for the possibility that it be restricted to particular regulars in the forum and _not_ include other regulars in the forum so that it never becomes a matter of elitism.

 

[chaoschristian]

Agreed. And, again, I'd push for the possibility that it be restricted to particular regulars in the forum and _not_ include other regulars in the forum so that it never becomes a matter of elitism.

Will, can you say that again please? I'm not following.

 

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Can we not do the wiki? Seriously...it only brings division.

What seemed to work the best in the CC forum is making a discussion thread. Then after some kind of consensus is made about the issues a poll is put up to vote for or against the proposal. This process will save us from wiki wars.

 

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

It causes issues in CC (where I'm a member), but it doesn't in WWMC (where I used to be, but had to quit because of a CC rule that you couldn't also be in WWMC). Why in one place and not the other? I think it has to do with the purpose of it: In CC there's a mission to keep the 'infidels' out. The membership list is there to make sure the membership is truly conservative. In WWMC all they're trying to accomplish is to keep random people from all over the site voting on their mods and rules. From that very limited intent, issues seldom arise. I'm proposing we follow the WWMC example on that.

Sorry Iz...missed your post here.

I guess if we have to for voting reasons it will be ok.

 

[Criada]

Membership for voting sounds OK - as long as there aren't too many rules, please!

Love God, love each other
Doesn't that cover it?